NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/health/alternat/696

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 1.8 KB | 40 lines

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!dgbt!ted
From: [e-mail] (Ted Grusec)
Subject: Re: anecdotal evidence - worthless?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <anne.727998575@menaik>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 00:41:58 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <anne.727998575@menaik> [e-mail] (Anne J.R. Nield) writes:
>[e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>
>For medical evidence, you should conduct an experiment with a large
>>enough sample to eliminate random noise (which could have been your result),
>>and run it as a double-blind test to eliminate placebo and self-delusion.
>>--
>
>"Medical" evidence (as in WESTERN, particularly North American, medical
>evidence) ain't the only game
>in town -- even though many people would have us believe it is.
>
>Since so many absolutely miraculous things seem to occur based on
>"the placebo effect" and "self-delusion", I'm surprised the pharmaceutical
>companies haven't found a way to patent it yet.  Think of the $$$billions
>they're missing out on!

There's nothing "medical" about evidence.  Evidence is based on
logical inference regardless of whether it's medicine or some other
discipline, even if it's one not recognized as a "science".

As for placebo effects, walk into any drugstore and take your pick.
The pharmaceutical industries have been selling placebo cures for a
very long time, and they don't need to patent the effect.  They are
not missing $$$billions.  They are banking it.>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Grusec - Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
Internet: [e-mail] - [phone] - Fax [phone]